NWR (Not Wedding Related)

advanced search

NWR: California & Gay Marriage

Online Users: 403 guest(s), 0 user(s). Replies: 326


MuffinB Posts : 778 Registered: 7/13/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 20, 2008 9:11 PM Go to message in response to: SocalGal

hahaha : ) it's ok......it's my fault for being here in my office at 6PM still typing away on brides.com

I should have gone home a long time ago when I said I was but nooooo, here I am still. This reminds me of the good 'ol college days when we would debate all sorts of controversial topics. I miss that but after a while, I get a headache from thinking too much.

email friend | report thread
Reply

Fitzer Posts : 643 Registered: 8/7/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 20, 2008 11:32 PM Go to message in response to: MuffinB

Give me an example of where a person, through no fault of their own, is born a certain way and the rest of us deny them equal rights?

So, I really just wanted to see if I could come up with any examples of this.  Not to prove any argument really, just to see.  Here's what I've come up with:

Non-natural-born US citizens cannot be President.

The blind (to a certain degree) are not allowed to legally drive.

(not a law, but a rule that denies equal rights) You must be X height to ride the roller coaster 

They're not great, but examples do exist. 


email friend | report thread
Reply


MuffinB Posts : 778 Registered: 7/13/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 20, 2008 11:53 PM Go to message in response to: Fitzer

Non-natural-born US citizens cannot be President.

The blind (to a certain degree) are not allowed to legally drive.

(not a law, but a rule that denies equal rights) You must be X height to ride the roller coaster.

Nobody has the "right" to be the president. Presidents are elected.

Driving is also not a right, it is a privilige. Denying a blind person a driver's license is done to protect others from getting killed.

The roller coaster rule is in place to protect the rider from falling out of the seat.

So, I'll re-phrase my question:

Give me an example of where a person, through no fault of their own, is born a certain way and because of this "deviance from the norm" (if you will) is denied equal rights AND it is perfectly acceptable to do so even if it doesn't harm them or others.

The closest example I can think of is the Civil Rights Movement (which was brought up by SoCal earlier and I forgot to comment on it) and I hope that we ALL agree that denying a black person equal rights was downright dispicable. I hope that just like the black community, the gay community fights on and wins this battle.

email friend | report thread
Reply


SDIwifey1207 Posts : 346 Registered: 7/9/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 12:16 AM Go to message in response to: MuffinB

Ladies!!! Please read this... I found it on the internet and it TOTALLY opened my eyes in this whole discussion....

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm


<3 I'm so in love with my hunni bunni <3

                 Dec 29 ,2007

          Formerly MrsEichel1207

email friend | report thread
Reply

RomanticGirl Posts : 777 Registered: 3/28/06
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 12:25 AM Go to message in response to: SDIwifey1207

Okay that is way too much reading, SDI. I just don't have the patience! Maybe tomorrow I'll have the energy.

Okay here's a general question.

What about hermaphrodites? Babies who are born with both genitalea. HOw does that work? I mean does God want the parents to choose a certain gender for the baby and make sure the baby is attracted to the other gender? How will the parents know which gender God wanted the baby to be? How will they know how to choose the right gender so that the baby doesn't grow up to be gay?

 


 

 

email friend | report thread
Reply


MuffinB Posts : 778 Registered: 7/13/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 12:34 AM Go to message in response to: SDIwifey1207

SDIwifey- I skimmed through the link and what I got out of it is that basically Christians are OK with homosexuals but are not OK with homosexual acts? Did you get that too?

If so, that means that it's ok for a gay man to love another gay man but it's not ok for them to make love. Sorry, but that's bullshit.

You know the funny thing about all this is that I've been fighting tooth and nail ALL day today about this and I don't have any gay friends or family members. I have gay acquantainces but none that I consider good friends or anything.

WHY CAN"T I STOP POSTING???!!!!

By the way, SDI I hope that your family issues with your mom and grandfather get resolved. This is the second time that you blame your personal problems at home for your unruly comments here. While I sympathize with you (we all have family drama) I don't think it's a good idea to use that as a cop out to some of the ccomments you make.

email friend | report thread
Reply


MuffinB Posts : 778 Registered: 7/13/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 12:41 AM Go to message in response to: RomanticGirl

Hermaphrodites. Hmmmm....if I had a hermaphrodite baby I would try to raise him/her as neutral as possible. Meaning, no dressess, no hair bows, unisex hair cut, gender neutral toys....etc. Depending on how they feel as a person, when they grow up they can tell me whether they feel they are male or female. If he feels he is a boy on the inside, then we get rid of the punani and if she feels she is a girl on the inside then we get rid of the weiner.

Hahaha.....it's kinda late, I'm tired, my eyes hurt, my head is about to explode...please forgive me for the childish punani and weiner words.

email friend | report thread
Reply


BooBishaBride Posts : 120 Registered: 1/31/08
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 1:31 AM Go to message in response to: RomanticGirl

Romantic and Bird- I agree with you on this one, the same reason why I fell out of organized religion. It's all about you're personal connection with Jesus, not about following other people's interpretations. 

email friend | report thread
Reply


myra Posts : 5,555 Registered: 3/28/06
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 1:41 AM Go to message in response to: SDIwifey1207

Wow! The Bible was written in English? Oh, no, wait. That's a translation--and I'm sure that the translators were neutral and had no agenda whatsoever. Not to mention that there seems to be only one accurate way to translate anything, and the original was absolutely crystal clear to begin with, and the translator was totally perfect. What are the chances? Oh, wait, the translator was divinely inspired. But, no, because the translator next to him seems to have a different translation!

Have you ever played telephone in elementary school? Remember how a word or phrase started out one way at the beginning and ended up completely different by the time it passed through 20 or 30 people? That's how it is with Biblical translation. Take a few different translations of the Bible and place them side by side. I think you'll be amazed at how different the various translations are. How can you tell which (if any) are correct? And, since the Bible was written by people, you have to allow for human fallibility as well.

Did you know that the first Gospel (Matthew) was written around 70 years after Jesus was crucified? In other words, it was not an eyewitness account. And the Last Gospel (John) was written about 200 years after the fact?  Just imagine someone writing American history 200 years after it actually happened--do you think there just might be the chance for a little inaccuracy?

I'm not questioning anyone's faith. And a lot of the Bible seems to be pretty good history. But, really, you need to bone up on Biblical scholarship (in all denominations, by the way, not just one religion) before you jump on the "Look, here, look what it says" bandwagon.

email friend | report thread
Reply


BooBishaBride Posts : 120 Registered: 1/31/08
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 2:07 AM Go to message in response to: RomanticGirl

This may be a bit sciency but there are actually molecular receptors that are gender specific. Some people are born with a y chromosome and female specific receptors. Meaning that they are chromosomally boy but molecularly girl. So there would be no real answer to what gender they "should" be. All of these are very interesting questions in classifying genders categories. 

And hey, the old testament had a law against cripples going to temple, no one with 'defects' could make sacrifices. So even if they were born that way, they were already unfit for the lord. So I guess some Christians may admit that God 'makes' or at least 'allows' people to be flawed from birth but that they still have to try their best to live up to his commands? At least those are arguments I've heard before, and likely the argument we'll hear again once science proves being gay is primarily genetic.

 

SoCal- I just want to say that you're previous post was very articulate. However, I would disagree on classifying homosexuality as a 'moral' sin under the categories that you presented. I haven't heard any convincing evidence that it should be classified in that way. Similarly, all the women's role rules would likely be classified as moral laws as well, which I doubt any of us would agree with. 

 

Enough for now, sweet dreams everyone  

email friend | report thread
Reply

RomanticGirl Posts : 777 Registered: 3/28/06
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 5:52 AM Go to message in response to: myra

Thank you, I've been wanting to bring that up too. That the gospels were written way after Jesus' time. It's not like Jesus wrote them himself.

There is a particular teacher alive today who resonates very deeply with me. This teacher is not with any particular denomination though let's just say all of the major religious teachers like Jesus and Mohammed are very much part of this person's cosnciousness.

So anyway, this person was describing how they wanted to write a letter to a friend in spanish. So they asked a spanish translater to translate their english letter into spanish for them. Out of curiousity, they had a separate spanish-english translator translate the same letter back to English again.

Because of the inescapable innacuracies of translation, he didn't even recognize the letter when compared to the original letter.

So imagine the innacuracies when an event is written down almost a century after it happened by someone who just heard about it through the grapevine, and that this same text was translated and translated.

 


 

 

email friend | report thread
Reply


MiJoMy Posts : 245 Registered: 2/15/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 9:27 AM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

I wish people would read my previous comment. (page12) I don't like the general acceptance that homosexuality is a sin. It is not. Quaker's believe that there is that of God in everyone and they are responsible to themselves. I don't agree that all Christians believe on some level that it is a sin to be gay. And as for you people who say such utter nonsense as "it's in the bible, so I don't have to think about" what about WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with fear and trembling.In other words think for yourself


Message was edited by: MiJoMy

email friend | report thread
Reply


CaribbeanBride08 Posts : 1,474 Registered: 6/13/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 9:43 AM Go to message in response to: SocalGal

Caribbean - I'm not a student to the constitution, so I don't know if marriage in defined within it as the legal union of a man and a woman.  However, if you google the definition of marriage the first thing that pops up is exactly that.  Marriage has always been defined as an institution joining members of the opposite sex, and not just in our own, modern society. 

Okay, I looked it up in dictionary.com and you're right, it's defined as a man and woman.  HOWEVER, when I was a child, I remember being told "AIN'T IS NOT A WORD!"....   And now you can certainly find this word in the dictionary.  So I don't see what the big deal is about redefining the word marriage as it currently reads in the dictionary.  It's called evolving!


 

 

Daisypath Ticker

Married 4/21/08 Sandals Grande St. Lucian Spa & Beach Resort

Slideshow of our wedding photos:

http://s199.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/tobiandbrian/Wedding%20Photos/?action=view¤t=cb216606.pbr

caribbean
email friend | report thread
Reply

Fitzer Posts : 643 Registered: 8/7/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 10:16 AM Go to message in response to: MuffinB

Running for President and driving are as much rights as getting married is.  Marriage isn't an inalienable (sp?) like like speech or a speedy trial.  Like voting and driving and other things, it's something many can do, but not everyone, and it has to be done within limits.  The "right" doesn't apply to everyone in all cases.

The thing is, of course no one can come up a perfectly synonymous example.  One doesn't exist.  If it did, there would be existing case law guiding the courts on how to handle this.  But there aren't perfect comparisons.  It's a tangled mess that the courts are trying to figure out because it's an unclear area of law. 

 Anyway, this has been fun, I haven't gotten to debate polisci or law in a few years.  And I agree, I hope the GLBTQ,etc community wins their battle.  It looks like it's headed in the right direction, albeit slowly.


speech
email friend | report thread
Reply


MsDenuninani Posts : 3,963 Registered: 3/16/07
Re: NWR: California & Gay Marriage
Posted: May 21, 2008 10:39 AM Go to message in response to: Fitzer

Kelley, I actually wasn't lurking.  I avoided this thread yesterday for the most part because I've already said everything about my views on homosexuals the last time we did this.  And I'm just now getting on the computer since 4pm yesterday.  I see that both Fitzer and myra have done an excellent job of saying things that I would have said, so at least my thoughts have been represented.

MuffinB - Fitzer was right about the running for President.  Yes, a president is elected, but even if a non-natural born citizen were elected, he still couldn't be president, through no fault of his own.  There was actually some question about this regarding McCain, who was not born on US soil (but he's good because he was born to US citizens).

SDI, I don't personally believe you've contradicted yourself.  I can understand why a behavior can make you upset, yet you can still support it's legalization.  The disagreement lies primarily in calling it a "behavior."  My husband has a similar view, with roots in the church that he belonged to as a child, and struggles with similar questions.   I let him figure it out on his own -- he knows very well (exceedingly well. . .he'd probably say entirely too well) where I stand.

A lot of this conversation has been regarding whether being gay is a behavior or genetic.  The truth is, although I think there's a lot of support for the latter, I wouldn't be bothered in the least if it were indeed a choice.  I certainly know many 4-year lesbians (aka women who "experimented" in college) and I never thought to myself that their marital rights should depend on whether or not they were engaging in a fad.  I honestly think that you should be able to marry the individual you chose to be with even if it is exactly that - a choice. 


_______________________________________________________
 “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”    - Albert Einstein

BARACK THE VOTE!  www.barackobama.com

email friend | report thread
Reply
RSS

Join

Email

App

App

WIN

Give a Subscription to Brides Magazine as a Gift

Find Local Vendors

From Florists to Photographers...

are you a vendor? Click Here

Find your BRIDES wedding website below

Subscribe to Brides magazine